Literature DB >> 22326381

Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: a cross-cultural, Q-methodology study.

Shenaz Ahmed1, Louise D Bryant, Zahra Tizro, Darren Shickle.   

Abstract

Informed choice is internationally recognised and accepted as an important aspect of ethical healthcare. In the U.K., NHS antenatal screening policies state that their primary aim is to facilitate reproductive informed choices. These policies, implemented within a multiethnic population, are largely guided by the ethical principle of autonomy. This study was carried out in 2009 in the U.K. and used Q-methodology to explore diversity in the value attached to autonomous informed choice in antenatal screening for genetic disorders and similarities and differences in this value in women from different ethnic origins. Ninety-eight participants of African, British White, Caribbean, Chinese and Pakistani origin completed a 41-statement Q-sort in English, French, Mandarin or Urdu. Q-Factor analysis produced five statistically independent viewpoints of the value of informed choice: choice as an individual right; choice informed by religious values; choice as a shared responsibility; choice advised by health professionals; and choice within the family context. The findings show that women hold a variety of views on the nature of informed choice, and that, contradictory to policies of autonomous informed choice, many women seek and value the advice of health professionals. The findings have implications for the role of health professionals in facilitating informed choice, quality of care and equity of access. Copyright Â
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22326381     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.12.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  8 in total

1.  Nurses' perspectives on the intersection of safety and informed decision making in maternity care.

Authors:  Carrie H Jacobson; Marya G Zlatnik; Holly Powell Kennedy; Audrey Lyndon
Journal:  J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs       Date:  2013-09-04

2.  Is advice incompatible with autonomous informed choice? Women's perceptions of advice in the context of antenatal screening: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Shenaz Ahmed; Louise D Bryant; Zahra Tizro; Darren Shickle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Experiences of parents with a child with Down syndrome in Pakistan and their views on termination of pregnancy.

Authors:  Shenaz Ahmed; Louise D Bryant; Mushtaq Ahmed; Hussain Jafri; Yasmin Raashid
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2012-10-23

4.  Best ethical practices for clinicians and laboratories in the provision of noninvasive prenatal testing.

Authors:  M A Allyse; L C Sayres; M Havard; J S King; H T Greely; L Hudgins; J Taylor; M E Norton; M K Cho; D Magnus; K E Ormond
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  Interpretations of autonomous decision-making in antenatal genetic screening among women in China, Hong Kong and Pakistan.

Authors:  Shenaz Ahmed; Huso Yi; Dong Dong; Jianfeng Zhu; Hussain Jafri; Yasmin Rashid; Olivia My Ngan; Mushtaq Ahmed
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  The scope of prenatal diagnosis for women at increased risk for aneuploidies: views and preferences of professionals and potential users.

Authors:  Antina de Jong; Wybo J Dondorp; Anja Krumeich; Julie Boonekamp; Jan M M van Lith; Guido M W R de Wert
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2012-11-09

7.  The impact of migrations on the health services for rare diseases in Europe: the example of haemoglobin disorders.

Authors:  Michalis Angastiniotis; Joan-Lluis Vives Corrons; Elpidoforos S Soteriades; Androulla Eleftheriou
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2013-03-18

8.  What results to disclose, when, and who decides? Healthcare professionals' views on prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis.

Authors:  Shiri Shkedi-Rafid; Angela Fenwick; Sandi Dheensa; Diana Wellesley; Anneke M Lucassen
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 3.050

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.